Workers want pay boost

Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Some pol the other day said that we're now living in a minimum wage economy, and I think he was right. That's the reality for many people, not just because of crappy current economic policies, but because the rest of the world has caught up to the U.S. economically, and the competition is fierce, and the good, solid, for-life, blue-collar factory jobs our dads and moms had are very scarce now. I think the old idea that the jobs that are available at places like the Disney parks are only for "work experience", and that a person shouldn't expect a "living wage" from them, are archaic and out-of-step with reality.

But I don't know what the answer for all that might be. If the wages are raised, then Disney will raise park prices, and those prices are already ridiculous. I'll be interested to see what happens. I assure you, the ONLY thing that keeps me from working at a theme park right now is the lousy pay. So I can't help but root for the guys pushing for more. We'll see...
 
xdan0920

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
slappy magoo said:
Well, the federal minimum wage is the "blanket." And if state senators or governors feel like it's insufficient, they introduce a bill to raise it. But if there's no blanket, then there's no minimum at all, and that's a scarier project, seeing the unemployed go all Thunderdome fighting for a job that pays 3 bucks an hour because there's no set minimum.

Meanwhile, I disagree with the notion that a kid should get paid less than a grownup doing the same job, with the possible exception of apprenticeships, where a kid is actually learning a trade while working. But even then, it should be livable, and part-timers should get paid per hour what would be comparable to a living wage were they full time (in other words, if the minimum wage is $10.10 an hour, someone working 20 hours a week should still get $202 a week, but not $404). I remember during the 2008 Republican Primary, Newt Gingrich getting some negative press for suggesting that young students who need free or subsidized breakfasts or lunches should be made to do janitorial work in schools and then the schools would each only need "one master janitor." While some applauded the notion that it would teach the kids the value of a dollar and the importance of work, either people (including admittedly me) thought "the most important job a kid has is to BE A STUDENT, to learn, and work towards a better future, and the notion that a whole custodial staff should be fired - to lose the dignity of THEIR hard work - so the schools could get indentured servitude from poor students who would presumably learn something about the value of hard work was nothing short of cruel." What better way to teach a grownup the value of hard work than to say "we firing you and making kids do your job for lunch money?"
Click to expand...

There's a lot here.

I didn't mean a kid should get paid less then an adult. I should have left the "17" out of my original statement.

I own a small business, and we hire min wage ish employees. The job they are doing is simply not worth more then that. Maybe a slight uptick based on amount of time worked. But anything more then that becomes prohibitive. If minimum wage jumps to $10 per hour, these jobs will just be eliminated. A raise of that magnitude (without cutting the jobs) would put me out of business. I fail to see how no jobs beats some jobs in this scenario.

By the way, we are on that road already. Soon those jobs will disappear and it will all be self serve on the consumer end. Which is better for me, the business owner, but worse for consumers and former workers.
 
Last edited:
WDWDad13

WDWDad13

Well-Known Member
slappy magoo said:
An inability to compartmentalize and focus on one issue? Like who you think doesn't deserve a wage of $9.64 an hour?
Click to expand...

someone who doesn't try hard and be smart in life, someone who is in a job that many would do for much less, and those who aren't in a $9.64 type of job

I didn't want to go here...and I don't want this to sound harsh because I know many who are unfortunately in this situation.... but a single mom with a child with no help from a deadbeat tadpole donor doesn't exactly mean that they should be paid more
 
slappy magoo

slappy magoo

Well-Known Member
xdan0920 said:
There's a lot here.

I didn't mean a kid should get paid less then an adult. I should have left the "17" out of my original statement.

I own a small business, and we hire min wage ish employees. The job they are doing is simply not worth more then that. Maybe a slight uptick based on amount of time worked. But anything more then that becomes prohibitive. If minimum wage jumps to $10 per hour, these jobs will just be eliminated. A raise of that magnitude would put me out of business. I fail to see how no jobs beats some jobs in this scenario.

By the way, we are on that road already. Soon those jobs will disappear and it will all be self serve on the consumer end. Which is better for me, the business owner, but worse for consumers and former workers.
Click to expand...

I don't know your business (I mean that literally, I don't know what kind of business you own) and you may be right that an increase in minimum wage would require you to downsize. But I look at a scenario like Papa John's, whose founder aid that once/if the Affordable Care Act were enacted, he'd have to downsize or increase the costs of his pizzas significantly to cover the costs...and then it turned out the increase would be less than a quarter per pie. Not a quarter of the price of the pie. 25 cents more per pie.

But if you're on that road already, if you see a time where you'll need no workers, than isn't an increase in the minimum wage kinda moot for you?

BTW, if the nation's going that route, it's not necessarily good for you, either. The more businesses like yours that become self-serve, the fewer people are employed which potentially means fewer people able to afford your wares. Just a thought, honestly not trying to be judgmental.
 
WDWDad13

WDWDad13

Well-Known Member
slappy magoo said:
I don't know your business (I mean that literally, I don't know what kind of business you own) and you may be right that an increase in minimum wage would require you to downsize. But I look at a scenario like Papa John's, whose founder aid that once/if the Affordable Care Act were enacted, he'd have to downsize or increase the costs of his pizzas significantly to cover the costs...and then it turned out the increase would be less than a quarter per pie. Not a quarter of the price of the pie. 25 cents more per pie.

But if you're on that road already, if you see a time where you'll need no workers, than isn't an increase in the minimum wage kinda moot for you?

BTW, if the nation's going that route, it's not necessarily good for you, either. The more businesses like yours that become self-serve, the fewer people are employed which potentially means fewer people able to afford your wares. Just a thought, honestly not trying to be judgmental.
Click to expand...

papa johns also decreased workers hours
 
slappy magoo

slappy magoo

Well-Known Member
WDWDad13 said:
someone who doesn't try hard and be smart in life, someone who is in a job that many would do for much less, and those who aren't in a $9.64 type of job

I didn't want to go here...and I don't want this to sound harsh because I know many who are unfortunately in this situation.... but a single mom with a child with no help from a deadbeat tadpole donor doesn't exactly mean that they should be paid more
Click to expand...

Well there's often a big difference between "try hard" and "be smart in life." Some people didn't apply themselves, say, in school, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't apply themselves to a job were they in your employ. And sadly, some people just aren't smart and never will be. But it's not germane to this discussion. If there's a person working hard at a job to bring value to his or her employer, you nonetheless think some of those people deserve to not earn a livable wage if those jobs are kinda stinky. And I'm asking who are those people and what are those jobs, in your opinion? As I wrote before, I think if your business model is based on the assumption that you'll pay your employees so little that they'll require government assistance to survive, then you're doing capitalism wrong. You are in fact more Socialist because you apparently agree the government SHOULD help out the people in your employ that you refuse to help by paying them enough for a home, food and clothes.
 
WDWDad13

WDWDad13

Well-Known Member
slappy magoo said:
Well there's often a big difference between "try hard" and "be smart in life." Some people didn't apply themselves, say, in school, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't apply themselves to a job were they in your employ. And sadly, some people just aren't smart and never will be. But it's not germane to this discussion. If there's a person working hard at a job to bring value to his or her employer, you nonetheless think some of those people deserve to not earn a livable wage if those jobs are kinda stinky. And I'm asking who are those people and what are those jobs, in your opinion? As I wrote before, I think if your business model is based on the assumption that you'll pay your employees so little that they'll require government assistance to survive, then you're doing capitalism wrong. You are in fact more Socialist because you apparently agree the government SHOULD help out the people in your employ that you refuse to help by paying them enough for a home, food and clothes.
Click to expand...

you do know it's not the employers job to ensure that each employee is living the good life outside of work right?

if job A is an entry level job... pretty much anyone could do it with the proper on job training...no educational requirements...and there are many others in line who would be willing to do that job... then that would be entry level pay, period

no one automatically earns or deserves a livable wage just because they were born in America regardless of what they do or don't do (and we all know livable means many different things to different people too)
 
Tonka's Skipper

Tonka's Skipper

Well-Known Member
According to the news, due to Obamacare, 3 million part time workers who had some benefits, including medical are expected to loss hours and have all benefits cut.

Also many, many full time workers are going to have hours cut. lose benefits, and become part time.

These job changes are already happening, by Companies and Unions, YES unions throwing their membership under the bus.

These folks are mostly low paid and will now, by law have to pay for Medical...they may not eat, but they will have medical.

Thank you President Obama and the congress Democrats.

AKK
 
slappy magoo

slappy magoo

Well-Known Member
WDWDad13 said:
you do know it's not the employers job to ensure that each employee is living the good life outside of work right?
Click to expand...

You DO know there's a difference twixt "the good life" and "not being on government assistance," right?

if job A is an entry level job... pretty much anyone could do it with the proper on job training...no educational requirements...and there are many others in line who would be willing to do that job... then that would be entry level pay, period
Click to expand...

And according to you, that can be a wage you can't afford to live on because someone else is more than willing to do it and not live on it.

no one automatically earns or deserves a livable wage just because they were born in America regardless of what they do or don't do (and we all know livable means many different things to different people too)
Click to expand...

Well, that's the idea of the minimum wage, to be a minimum livable wage. Even an entry level job. And if it doesn't pay enough, then taxpayers subsidize those workers...

Unless you think some workers don't deserve a livable wage AND simultaneously don't deserve federal assistance. Which is another way of saying you think people deserve to suffer.
 
Tonka's Skipper

Tonka's Skipper

Well-Known Member
WDWDad13 said:
you do know it's not the employers job to ensure that each employee is living the good life outside of work right?

if job A is an entry level job... pretty much anyone could do it with the proper on job training...no educational requirements...and there are many others in line who would be willing to do that job... then that would be entry level pay, period

no one automatically earns or deserves a livable wage just because they were born in America regardless of what they do or don't do (and we all know livable means many different things to different people too)
Click to expand...




You are correct. However the companies have a moral responsibility to try and give their employees a living wage when they work full time.

Its the right thing to do.

AKK
 
Hakunamatata

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
Tonka's Skipper said:
You are correct. However the companies have a moral responsibility to try and give their employees a living wage when they work full time.

Its the right thing to do.

AKK
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case yet. One persons morals differ from another. A regular mantra by certain groups is "you can't legislate morals" so since that door swings both ways you can't use morals as a means to gauge living wage or impose that standard on companies.
 
Tonka's Skipper

Tonka's Skipper

Well-Known Member
Both of you WDWdad 13 and Hakunamatata have good points. maybe Moral is the wrong word.

The companies make there living by the labor of their employees, seems they have a obligation ( at least when times are good) to provide a living wage and benefits. Lots of companies are make big money these days and not being fiar in passing it down to the guys and gals in the trench's!

I know this is not a easy question these days, I didn't mean to come off as the final answer. I am not.
 
Hakunamatata

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
I'm right there with you @Tonka's Skipper . It's difficult. Where I work we spend alot of time and energy on employee engagement and interaction. The vast majority of time these discussions surround non monetary issues. I would have an easier time agreeing with the livable wage thought process if the primary purpose of business was to employ people, but it's not. Most businesses are started by an individual with an idea to do or sell something at a profit. Although this may include employing people to achieve that goal, it's not the objective of the person who risks to start the business.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom